Evidence for Christianity

[GANIMEDE]

Isnt the mere fact that these "Believers" claim that "Man is born into a broken world" evidence enough for doubting that such a "Creator" could exist ? ? ?

What kind of "Allmighty Creator" breaks what he made, and then stands idley by as his prized creations suffer without end ? ? ?

This is rather bizarre picture of character at best. . . . .

A moral example:
Does this "God" care at all about children suffering with cancer? I can understand him wanting to punish sinners, but why all this sadistic action with Tuberculosis, Diabetes, Dengue Fever, Malaria, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis, Meningitis, Lupus and all the other MILLION horrific plagues which punish the innocent along with his "sinners" ? ? ? And what "God", in his right mind, would create mosquitos anyway ? ? ?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Does this "Creator" posess any morality at all ? ? ?

[Rev. Rye]

You know, I actually did read the article that was linked to. One thing that really interested me was the parts talking about abstinence being the safest thing for unmarried people. I will share a few thoughts on the subject.

First of all, that fact is actually less contested than you might think. Even Planned Parenthood says that abstinence is the single most effective method of preventing pregnancies and STDs, and because I know you won't believe me, the link is to their official site. The crucial difference between the Church and Planned Parenthood is that Planned Parenthood doesn't harbor any pipe dreams of making a world where abstinence before marriage is something that actually happens regularly. There is only one way that widespread abstinence before marriage will happen on a societal level and actually work. Before I tell you this, I will tell you a fun fact about one of the legends of Country music which will lead directly into the solution: Loretta Lynn married her husband when she was fourteen. I don't know what you thought when you read that, but I can guess that it wasn't pretty. Unfortunately, the fact is that when society was more likely to be abstinent before marriage, marriages tended to be performed shortly after at least one party had hit puberty. But then the Industrial Revolution hit and totally screwed up the family structure. In fact, I had an ethics teacher in High School who was a devout Catholic who all but admitted that the Industrial Revolution and the increased need for education made the societal expectation for premarital abstinence unfeasible. For the record, I have read that Saudi Arabia is one of the countries which has the lowest rates of premarital sex. It also has no minimum marriageable age, and girls as young as eight have married.

In short, if you don't want to see people in their early teens marrying, don't expect that they won't fuck before marriage.

[dqualk]

@ rye

I believe you rev. Rye.

The Church does not harbor such a dream, certainly not in the near future or even far future for that matter.

I don't expect such a thing.

---

Ganimede I beleive what you are hitting at is the problem of evil. This is the best arguement against Theism in my opinion. I have chosen the Theodicy offered by Leibniz which is called the best possible of all worlds theodicy or the soul building theodicy, as my defense for the problem of evil. I know its not completely convincing, but to me it is more convincing that materialist atheism that states that there is no objective right and wrong, non-illusory/sunjetive love is the only true love that exists, I do not really exist (as my thought are just illusory, because they are in fact the result of atoms banging around), and there is no intrinsic value etc.

[OnlyNatural]

This is the best article on why homosexuality is bad for society that I have read.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_ca...rriage.htm

Okay, I read the article. It's actually about why gay marriage is bad for society, but I'll go with that. I'm paraphrasing each argument (to save space), though I'll include some quotes. Then underneath I'll include my response.

First of all, there is NO source given for the French study. In fact, the only sources this gay-and-celibate Catholic author refers to are Xtra magazine, a Gay and Lesbian newspaper (*raises eyebrow*), and some irrelevant statistics about divorce rates for different professions. Very unimpressive, but I didn't expect anything legitimate from such a biased site. Anyway, off we go:

Argument #1: The gay community was never really into marriage.

Even if the majority of people in the gay community didn't want to get married, why should the few couples who do want to marry be prevented from doing so? You can't generalize against an entire group as if they all have the same values and desires. Except when I say that we are all human, and as a group, we all deserve equal rights.

Argument #2: Gay people have more health problems, STDs, and a higher risk of suicide.

STDs can be prevented by using contraception. What we need is more education about the risks of sex, preferably in adolescence when young people have raging hormones and are figuring out their sexuality. But Catholics would see sex education banned, and LGBT acceptance discouraged. Where does this leave gay teens? Without being provided with the tools and information to maximize their sexual safety, and being ostracized and denigrated by society for who they are, no wonder they are at higher risk of infection, substance abuse, and even suicide. The Catholic Church seems to view homosexuality as an unhealthy choice some people make, that, if discouraged, will stop being made. They fail to realize that the vast majority of gay people have identified as such from a very early age, and it was not a choice, but a realization.

The gay community may very well have more health problems as a group, partly due to lifestyle and partly due to society. However, that is no reason to deny them equal rights! African Americans also have a higher risk of certain health conditions, but would you say this makes them undeserving of marriage?

Argument #3: 'Secular fundamentalists' have made 'human rights' their religion, and the poor Christians who don't agree that gays should have rights are being persecuted and are the victims of hate crimes. Oh, and they're worried about losing charitable donations and having to pay taxes, because more and more people are against the Catholic church's discriminatory policies.

'Secular fundamentalism simultaneously belittles religion, and sets forth its own religious dogmas. It's ultimate outcome is to throw Christians in jail, or worse. This is a modern day inquisition against anyone who does not hold with the state religion which is fundamentalist humanism.'

'Here are Christian business people (referring to school staff who don't want to include homosexuality in sex ed classes) who no longer have the human right to work without compromising their values.'

'The human rights commission...is an anti-Christian institution and it is regulating the way that people in Canada live their lives. Teaching your child the Bible is now being seriously considered a discriminatory behaviour.'

'The genesis of the modern "human rights" movement is based on Christian theological principles.'

Seriously? Wow. Just... wow. So this 'good Christian' goes on about how gays don't deserve this and that, how their chosen lifestyles should be outlawed, and THEN to have the AUDACITY to turn around and whine about how Christians are being discriminated against? And then he claims that Christian values are the foundation of 'human rights?' Fucking arrogant and disgusting.

I don't think he even knows what Humanism is. Since when is 'the greater good of humanity' a bad thing? Oh wait, it's because God and the Bible aren't necessary for this philosophy.

'Our culture presents human rights as some kind of universal truth.'

So tolerance and human rights are a bad thing, and shouldn't be universal? Or maybe you think only certain people deserve rights. Didn't you Christians want your human rights respected? And who says you have any knowledge of a 'universal truth?'

Argument #4: Gay rights activists want to legalize promiscuity, public sex, group sex, illegal pornography, the sex trade, and lower the age of consent for anal sex to 14.

Mostly this is bullshit. But consensual sexual activity between adults is legal because it does no harm. Public sex, exploitative porn, 'the sex trade,' and sex with unconsenting children is illegal, and likely to stay that way. Gay rights activists may want more freedom of sexual expression, but not in a way that is immoral and destructive. Maybe the Catholic Church should take a look at their own immoral and destructive beliefs and policies before pointing their finger at others.

Argument #5: Sexual fidelity and chastity are better than sexual freedom.

'All humans have sexuality. It's God's gift, but with any gift comes a great responsibility. Sex is powerful. People are born from sex, people die from sex (STD's). If I get a powerful gift for Christmas, say a car, there are rules that keep me safe. I think it is the same with sexuality.'

'The Catholic Church has always asserted that chastity, or alternatively celibacy, are the correct expressions of our sexual natures. This is supported by the Bible. It applies to everyone, including Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered (GLBT) people.'

And what gives you, the Catholic Church, the right to impose any of your warped sex rules on other people?? You obviously know nothing about what's natural when it comes to sex. Not really a surprise though, since when the Bible was written, almost 2000 years ago, they didn't really know either. So you're swallowing whole the ancient moralizing bullshit of a repressed and isolated primitive society. You should be proud.

Argument #6: Canada was founded on Christian values, but is now legalizing gay marriage and becoming more secular, and discrimination against gays is highly frowned upon.

Good for Canada! I'm proud to be a Canadian. And don't whine about how Canada was founded on Christianity. It wasn't, any more than America was. The founders were Christian, yes, but Canada has no official religion and is committed to religious pluralism, secular law, and the separation of church and state, just like the USA. Here's an article with a good counterargument:

http://www.homophobie.org/default.aspx?scheme=1501

Argument #7: The two genders are different, with different needs. Men and women are naturally complementary in relationships.

'A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage.'

Marriage does not require procreation to be a valid union. And men and women do not always complement each other, just because they have opposite genitalia. Personality matters a lot more in choosing a partner, and compatibility based on personality is what leads to longer-lasting unions.

Argument #8: Gay marriage is harmful to children and families.

Here is an actual summary of research findings from hundreds of scientific studies, from the American Psychological Association (APA) no less, that says otherwise. Click the link, then on the right side of the webpage under Table of Contents, click 'Conclusion,' which sums up the findings.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

'Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.'

And again, dqualk, there is NO link to an 'exhaustive secular study' done in France that says gay marriage is bad for children. Other than this non-evidence, the author includes a few personal anecdotes to support his case. Pretty pathetic.

Argument #9: We should revive the institution of marriage. Yes, hetero marriages are often screwed up, but homo marriages will only be worse.

'Instead of trying to further soil the institution of marriage, I think we should be reviving it. We should be reviving the idea of lifelong commitment and chastity before marriage.'

'There are many faithful Christians who still value marriage so why not leave the definition of marriage for those to whom it still means something.'

So Christians should be allowed to define and dictate what marriage should be like for all other citizens, because they believe the Bible's definition is the only right one. The arrogance of these people is unbelievable...

Argument #10: It's unconstitutional to change the definition of marriage.

Author got an e-mail that he disagreed with. The e-mail said: 'there should be an amendment that defines marriage as inclusive to all people regardless of sexual orientation.'

Then he whines about how judges should only interpret laws, not redefine them, and how our laws are getting all messed up. He probably would've whined when slavery laws were eradicated too, 'It's not faaaiiirrr, you can't just change the law!'

For the record, I totally agree with whomever wrote that e-mail.

Argument #11: Marriage 'was intimately related to the Church and the teaching of Christ,' not just a 'medieval convenience.'

'Catholics believe marriage is a religious concept designed by God before any government existed, before any law of man had been written. Marriage is God's idea. Catholics believe it is not for us as humans to tamper with. The word "Marriage" appears all over the New Testament (Mat 22:30, 24:38, Mk 12:25, Lk 2:36, 17:27, 20:34-35, 1 Co 7:38, 2 Co 11:2, 1 Ti 4:3, Heb 13:4, Rev 19:7, 19:9) and it is clearly drawn out as a relationship between one man and one woman. We cannot get around that without throwing out the Bible as "hate" literature.'

I'm not an expert on the history of marriage, but I'm pretty damn sure the Christians didn't come up with the idea. It's much more ancient than that. Yet the author says 'It was God's idea,' what a fucking joke.

I love that last line. Who else here thinks the Bible is 'hate literature?'

Argument #12: Christians who discriminate against gays (by refusing to perform civil marriages, or refusing to let them stay at their B&B) are accused of 'hate crime' and thrown in jail.

Here we go again, more whining about Christians being discriminated against. Don't they realize that it's them who are being discriminatory, them who are against equal rights for all?

Catholics insist on laws being Christian-friendly, but gripe and moan about laws that are gay-friendly? What hypocrites.

Argument #13: Gay marriage is worse than interracial marriage, because it redefines what marriage is, and will have a negative influence on other people and families.

'Others say "hey, my gay marriage won't affect your straight marriage." Catholics feel it will affect everybody, including married straight people. Public school students will be taught against the teachings of their parent's faith. Kids of gay marriages will influence the belief systems of Catholic kids. The concept of marriage would be weakened and vulnerable to another assault that Catholics cringe to think about - polygamy.'

So Christians are afraid that their marriages and belief systems are at risk if other people enter into different kinds of relationships? I just can't get my head around this self-absorbed mindset... it seems like they're terrified of change, and can't stomach the idea of more rights and freedoms for anyone who believes differently. The slippery slope idea is also evidence of their irrational fear. It's alluded to a lot on this webpage. 'If we legalize gay marriage, soon we'll have polygamy and people fucking in the streets! We can't have that!!'

I still say: 'If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one!' And stay the fuck out of other people's lives.

Argument #14: 'The government made the charter of rights and then says it is powerless to support it.'

Now I'm no expert on politics, but neither is this author, obviously. And he apparently thinks that Rights and Freedoms are only for certain kinds of people.

Here's a good counterargument for why gay marriage should be included on the Charter:

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/why220205.htm

Argument #15: The Bible is the foundation of our justice system.

'The Bible has historically been the foundation of our entire justice system. Our entire moral code is based upon it. Before someone testifies in court they swear on a Holy Bible.'

Wow I certainly HOPE our justice system isn't based on the Bible... what a nightmare of hatred and intolerance and cruelty and immorality and state-sanctioned murder THAT would be. It's a damn good thing we don't base our laws on this evil book.

Argument #16: No one believes in absolute truth anymore, but they should.

'The Old Testament is full of examples of God's people taking off and believing [a different version of the truth]. Eventually their own suffering brought them back to the Lord. I suggest that there is one Truth and it is not reliant on society's acceptance of it.'

More arrogance from Christians claiming that their book and their God are the only Truth. 'Absolute truth' and 'absolute morals' as written in the Bible are no longer beneficial for the good of humanity. In fact, they are quite destructive.

Argument #17: Catholics think that God's laws are more important that human constructs.

'Catholics believe that God is real, and we think he has an opinion about all kinds of things, including our sexual stuff. We think the laws of God's universe are more binding than the laws of man.'

'A Catholic would have to reduce the Bible to a bit of outdated history in order to justify gay marriage.'

What a good idea! The Bible IS terribly outdated! And just because you believe your sky-daddy is real and disapproves of where you put your genitals, doesn't mean the rest of us are that naive.

The final verdict.

In conclusion, VERY unimpressive 'evidence' for why gay marriage is bad for society. No evidence at all, actually. Just the opinions of a Catholic bigot. The more I read, the more my disgust for the immorality of religion just keeps on growing.

[dqualk]

Well a lot of his arguements were aimed at fellow Christians, and I do not think he is bigoted I think he is just stating his opinion. And like I said, you can ignore all the Bible business, the part I was getting at was the statistics that prove that the homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous one. Their life span is proof enough, not to mention their rate of HIV etc. The thing is homosexuality itself states that sexulaity is a subjective matter, and that kind of attitude leads men to question all sexual taboos, and conclude they are all just convention. Now that is easy for an atheist to beleive. But the vast majority of people believe that there are moral rights and wrongs, dealing with sexuality too.

I think you are the bigot, no offence intended, because you are the one who insists on insulting and believeing that he and Christians are evil and so on. He is stating his honest opinion and you are mad at him for it. Futher you act as if his opinions are unwarranted, as if civilization for the last 2000+ years, over most all of the world, has condemend homosexuality. And western civilization has based all of its morality on the Bible up until about 50-100 years ago. Human rights developed within a Christian west, this is just a fact. Now perhaps it could have developed under different terms, but it did not! And in my opinion now that we are moving away from Chrsitianity we will soon see Human Rights disappear, as there is no such thing as a right when there is no such thing as a thing which supercedes governments. Rights are grounded in the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with UNALIENABLE rights. Without an endower rights are just laws, or strong laws.

[OnlyNatural]

And like I said, you can ignore all the Bible business, the part I was getting at was the statistics that prove that the homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous one.

He does not give statistics that 'prove' the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous. He only references Xtra magazine, which is not an empirical source. And you still haven't shown me the source for that secular French study, whereas I showed you an actual summary of research findings that is evidence against it.

The thing is homosexuality itself states that sexulaity is a subjective matter, and that kind of attitude leads men to question all sexual taboos, and conclude they are all just convention.

Homosexuality doesn't 'state' anything, it's not a religion or an institution of any sort. It does involve one's subjective experience, but that doesn't mean it's a conscious choice. And you can't just assert that being gay automatically makes men go against all sexual conventions, obviously that's not the case.

the vast majority of people believe that there are moral rights and wrongs, dealing with sexuality too.

I agree that the vast majority of people believe there are moral rights and wrongs, but exactly what is considered 'right' or 'wrong' often differs between individuals and groups, including religious groups. Even actions considered almost universally wrong (ie. killing another human being) can be seen as 'right' in certain contexts (ie. war, death penalty, self-defense, defense of your ideological beliefs).

I guarantee you, there are lots of people who don't see homosexuality as morally wrong. Most people who do condemn it tend to be religious. And they often can't justify why they think it's wrong; they just 'feel' it is, and try to rationalize their disgust, or point to the Bible. The arguments in that article were incredibly weak, and it seems like you didn't even read my responses, except for the swear words.

I think you are the bigot, no offence intended, because you are the one who insists on insulting and believeing that he and Christians are evil and so on. He is stating his honest opinion and you are mad at him for it.

You can call me a bigot if you like, but the truth is, I am only intolerant of people who are prejudiced and discriminatory towards people who don't deserve it. I actually care about the well-being and suffering of human beings, I don't just conform to ideas about what's morally wrong based on what my religion thinks.

Futher you act as if his opinions are unwarranted, as if civilization for the last 2000+ years, over most all of the world, has condemend homosexuality. And western civilization has based all of its morality on the Bible up until about 50-100 years ago. Human rights developed within a Christian west, this is just a fact. Now perhaps it could have developed under different terms, but it did not!

Well you can believe what you want, if it makes you feel better. I have too much university shit to do to go searching for more sources for you right now.

And in my opinion now that we are moving away from Chrsitianity we will soon see Human Rights disappear, as there is no such thing as a right when there is no such thing as a thing which supercedes governments. Rights are grounded in the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with UNALIENABLE rights. Without an endower rights are just laws, or strong laws.

This is a really terrible thing to say about humanity, that we can never hope to govern ourselves in a way that respects the rights of every human being, unless there's a God who gave us rights and morals and laws. In fact, the poorest countries with the lowest quality of life are often the most devoutly religious.

And, consider this sociological analysis about the two most atheistic countries in the world:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189

[Society without God, by Phil Zuckerman]

So, what do the data show about the health, happiness and morality of these non-religious societies?

The data could hardly be clearer. Denmark and Sweden rank among the most well-developed, wealthiest, most democratic, most free, most entrepreneurial, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, best educated, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the entire world.

[Rev. Rye]

Futher you act as if his opinions are unwarranted, as if civilization for the last 2000+ years, over most all of the world, has condemend homosexuality. And western civilization has based all of its morality on the Bible up until about 50-100 years ago. Human rights developed within a Christian west, this is just a fact. Now perhaps it could have developed under different terms, but it did not!

Well you can believe what you want, if it makes you feel better. I have too much university shit to do to go searching for more sources for you right now.

Well, here's a few points.
[*]The Cyrus Cylinder has often been said to have been the first declaration of human rights, it was made six centuries before Christ, and almost a millennium before Christianity took hold of Europe.
[*]The Edicts of Ashoka also contain a significantly more detailed vision of human rights, and, once again, it was made a quarter of millennium before the birth of Christ in India by a Buddhist.
[*]Early in its history, Islam, for all the intolerance it has been spreading in the past century, was particularly progressive before its time.
[*]It took until about 1550 before there was any talk in Europe about the ideas of human rights, and even then, it was primarily about whether the Indians should be trusted to govern themselves.
[*]The idea of human rights only became popular in Europe around the time of the Enlightenment by people who were, I might add, often opposed by the Churches in their countries, and certainly came upon their ideas independently of their doctrines.

In short, you seriously need to read up on your Enlightenment thought.

[KichigaiNeko]

It is my opinion that dqualk desperately NEEDS to read up on a great many things other than his 'dogbook'

[Captain Scarlet]

I think you are the bigot, no offence intended, because you are the one who insists on insulting and believeing that he and Christians are evil and so on. He is stating his honest opinion and you are mad at him for it. Futher you act as if his opinions are unwarranted, as if civilization for the last 2000+ years, over most all of the world, has condemend homosexuality. And western civilization has based all of its morality on the Bible up until about 50-100 years ago. Human rights developed within a Christian west, this is just a fact. Now perhaps it could have developed under different terms, but it did not! And in my opinion now that we are moving away from Chrsitianity we will soon see Human Rights disappear, as there is no such thing as a right when there is no such thing as a thing which supercedes governments. Rights are grounded in the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with UNALIENABLE rights. Without an endower rights are just laws, or strong laws.

This is becuase as humanists we have a stronger moral foundation than christianity. We do not have that has to revert to the bizarre ramblings of bronze age goat-herders for moral and ethical issues. Instead we can accept morality for what it is and work towards a society where the human and not a gods insecure vanity is at the centre of our considerations.

As for Human rights developing in the Christian West being a fact, I think the Rev has reposnded well to this. By using the Christian prefix you are implying it had a role in developing human rights in the west. Yeah right, maybe they have caught onto it recently after years of humanism asserting itself over the religious demagogues, but for centuries before that your statements are a horrible paraody of the truth.

[KichigaiNeko]

Cataholicism has NEVER supported 'Humane Rights' we all know this for a fact...

Yeah right, maybe they have caught onto it recently after years of humanism asserting itself over the religious demagogues, but for centuries before that your statements are a horrible parody of the truth.

Worse than parody!! Outright lies and fabrications!!... Fantasies of deranged minds masquerading as truth to support a debauched hierarchy

It really is quite disgusting and I feel is tantamount to this 'Hell' the religious keep harping about.